Report on

Aquatic Ecosystems
Chemical Toxicity of Plastics Pollution to Aquatic Life and
Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife

Under Guidance of-

Prof. Srilata Patnaik

By-
Ankit Pratik
Abhijeet Rath
Pritam Kullu
Rampravesh Singh
Vishal Singh

1|Page
2|Page
Table of Contents
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 4
1- Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2- Background on the Chemicals Associated with Plastics ..................................................................................... 6
2.1- Common Plasticizers and Polymer Additives .................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Properties of Plasticizers and Other Polymer Additives ................................................................................... 7
2.3 Sorption of Chemicals to Plastics in the Aquatic Environment ........................................................................ 8
Sources and Transport of Plastics to the Aquatic Environment ................................................................................. 8
3.1 Types, Quantities, and Abundance of Plastics in the Aquatic Environment .................................................... 8
4 Toxicological Impacts of Chemicals Associated with Plastics on Aquatic Organisms and Aquatic-Dependent
Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................................10
4.1 Routes of Exposure ..........................................................................................................................................11
4.2 Toxic Effects .....................................................................................................................................................11
5- Marine Plastic Pollution Must Be Addressed .......................................................................................................11
5.1- What CFCs were to the ozone layer in the 1970s, plastic marine litter is now to the ocean. .....................11
5.2- The Harms of Plastic Marine Litter.................................................................................................................12
5.3- Plastic Marine Litter Harms Wildlife and Ecosystems ...................................................................................12
5.4- The Harms of Toxic Chemicals and Microplastics ..........................................................................................12
6- POLICY SUCCESS: ....................................................................................................................................................13
Bans and Fees on Single-Use Plastic Bags .............................................................................................................13
State Deposit-Refund Systems ..............................................................................................................................14
Extended Producer Responsibility ........................................................................................................................14
7-Recommendations: .................................................................................................................................................15
8-Case of Management ..............................................................................................................................................15
9-Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................................................15
References ..................................................................................................................................................................16

3|Page
Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the state of the science on the potential
chemical toxicity of ingested plastic and associated chemicals on aquatic organisms and
aquatic-dependent wildlife. The focus of this document is primarily on marine systems.
Since mass-production of plastics began in the 1940s and 1950s, the amount of plastic
debris entering marine and freshwater ecosystems has increased by several orders of
magnitude. However, recently the accumulation and potential impacts of plastic pollution
have been recognized as an emerging environmental issue. Recent estimates suggest that
4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of plastic waste entered the global marine environment in
2010. Plastics, including bags, packing materials, water bottles, and fishing line and their
breakdown products are now found throughout marine ecosystems and in the Great Lakes
and other freshwater ecosystems, including near urban and remote beaches, in the open
ocean, in sediments, within the water column, and in Arctic Sea ice. Plastic particles are
generally the most abundant type of debris encountered in the marine environment with
estimates suggesting that plastics comprise between 60% and 80% of total marine debris.
Plastics found in the aquatic environment are generally categorized as macroplastics (i.e.,
items > 5 mm diameter, such as disposable cups, bottles, and shipping pallets) and
microplastics (i.e., items < 5 mm diameter, such as microbeads and fishing line fragments).
In the aquatic environment, the ingestion of plastics also establishes a potential exposure
pathway for other chemical contaminants including metals, and persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic contaminants that may be sorbed from the water column to
plastic or incorporated into the plastics during manufacture
Aquatic ecosystems are critical components of the global environment. In addition to being
essential contributors to biodiversity and ecological productivity, they also provide a
variety of services for human populations, including water for drinking and irrigation,
recreational opportunities, and habitat for economically important fisheries. However,
aquatic systems have been increasingly threatened, directly and indirectly, by human
activities. In addition to the challenges posed by land use change, environmental pollution,
and water diversion, aquatic systems are expected to soon begin experiencing the added
stress of global climate change. Increases in water temperatures as a result of climate
change will alter fundamental ecological processes and the geographic distribution of
aquatic species.

4|Page
1- Introduction

Modern plastics were first introduced in the early 20th century, with the production of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene starting in the 1920s and 1930s. Mass-
production of plastics began in the 1940s and 1950s as part of the post-World War II
increase in consumerism to include many of the plastics commonly used today (e.g.,
polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyurethane (PUR),
polycarbonate, and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE – Teflon®) coatings. While uses in the
1920s and 1930s were more limited (e.g., a limited number of consumer goods,
automobile parts, and military equipment, plastics are used in the 21st century in a wide
array of products, including packaging materials, water bottles, mobile telephones,
computers, building insulation, medical devices, protective clothing, piping systems for
drinking water, and artificial limbs and joints. World plastic production has increased
dramatically from an estimated 1.7 million tons in 1950 to 311 million tons in 2014.
Coinciding with an increase in production, the amount of plastics in the aquatic
environment has been steadily increasing, and plastics and plastic particles (i.e.,
microplastics, items < 5 mm diameter) are now commonly found in freshwater and
marine systems around the globe.
Recent estimates suggest that 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of plastic waste entered the
global marine environment in 2010. Areas of accumulation of plastic debris include
enclosed basins, ocean gyres, and bottom sediments, including the deep ocean. Plastics in
the aquatic environment primarily originate from land-based sources such as littering,
improper or ineffective solid waste management, and wind-blown debris, though plastic
debris from fishing activities may be a key source in some areas. Plastic particles are
generally the most abundant type of debris encountered in the marine environment, with
estimates suggesting that 60% to 80% of marine debris is plastic and that more than 90%
of all floating debris particles are plastic.
Freshwater ecosystems and coastal wetlands are incredibly diverse and productive,
providing many tangible and intangible goods and services to human civilization and
welfare. Yet these systems are increasingly imperilled by human activity.

5|Page
2- Background on the Chemicals Associated with Plastics

Aside from the physical impacts, plastics have on aquatic organisms, plastics may play a
role in transporting chemicals that are associated with plastics within the aquatic
environment into the food chain. Key contaminants detected in plastics in the aquatic
environment include phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), alkylphenols, bisphenol A (BPA), and metals (e.g., cadmium, zinc, aluminum).
Because plastic debris can persist in the aquatic environment for a long time, plastic may

6|Page
be a source of chemicals to the aquatic environment if the ingredients used in making the
plastic (e.g., monomers and additives) leach into the surrounding waters and maybe a
sink for chemicals that may accumulate on plastics from the surrounding aquatic
environment (e.g., persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) contaminants). These two
categories of chemicals associated with plastics are described in more detail below.

2.1- Common Plasticizers and Polymer Additives

While plastics are named for their primary monomeric ingredients, plastics typically
contain additives that modify the properties of the pure polymers to increase pliability,
resist ultraviolet radiation, reduce flammability or degradation, or impart other preferred
physical characteristics to the finished product. Additives can leach from the plastic to
the surrounding environment and as the plastic fragments and weathers, more chemicals
are able to leach. Due to the large numbers of plasticizers and flame retardants
associated with plastics, only the common and well-studied groups of these compounds
are evaluated in this paper and discussed individually below.
Plasticizers are widely used to impart pliability to prevent shattering, with phthalates and
BPA among the most common plasticizers. A variety of phthalates are used in plastics
regarding the properties of 18 phthalates, most all of which may be found in plastics).
Some of the phthalates that were widely used in plastics in the past include dibutyl
phthalate (DBP), diethylhexylphthalate (DEHP), dimethyl phthalate (DMP), and benzyl
butyl phthalate (BBP). Phthalates often comprise a substantial portion of polymeric
materials; for example, phthalates are reported to be present at up to 50% of the mass of
finished PVC plastics. BPA is used as a monomer in the production of polycarbonate
plastics and is also used as an antioxidant, inhibitor, and stabilizer in PVC and other
plastics.

2.2 Properties of Plasticizers and Other Polymer Additives

The octanol-water partitioning coefficient (log Kow) represents the ratio of how much of
compound partitions to the organic solvent octanol relative to water in an octanol-water
system, and is a useful parameter for assessing the potential biological partitioning of
certain chemicals to lipid-rich tissues. Lipophilic/hydrophobic compounds have a greater
affinity for octanol relative to water. Larger log Kow values thus indicate a greater affinity
for non-polar materials (e.g., plastics and lipid membranes) and less of an affinity for
water.

7|Page
2.3 Sorption of Chemicals to Plastics in the Aquatic Environment

Plastics can accumulate chemical contaminants from the surrounding aquatic

environment due to their physical properties, such as size, shape and surface area, and
the chemical properties of the specific polymer. Adsorbed chemicals have been found on
plastic debris samples globally and include metals as well as compounds categorized as
PBT by the EPA, including PCBs, PAHs, and DDT. These chemicals resist degradation and
persist in the aquatic environment. The longer a plastic particle remains in the aquatic
environment, the more concentrated the contaminants can become as they accumulate
on the particle surface over time. However, the process of chemical contaminant
sorption and desorption is dynamic and depends on various factors, the most important
being the presence of a concentration gradient, but also other factors including
temperature, pH, and salinity. In addition, fragmentation, degradation, and weathering,
which occur over time in the aquatic environment, increase the surface area-to-volume
ratio of the plastic. These processes can result in an increase in the relative concentration
of sorbed contaminants and also allow for desorption of accumulated contaminants into
the water. For example, tests conducted on PVC, polyethylene, and polypropylene
indicate that exposure of the plastics to ultraviolet light, simulating weathering
conditions, increases the absorptive capacity of these plastics relative to virgin plastics.

Sources and Transport of Plastics to the Aquatic Environment

3.1 Types, Quantities, and Abundance of Plastics in the Aquatic Environment

Plastic debris is ubiquitous in the aquatic environment. While plastics in the marine
environment have received the most attention to date, investigations also indicate that
plastics readily accumulate in freshwater environments. Plastics found in the aquatic
environment are generally categorized as macroplastics (i.e., items > 5 mm diameter,
such as disposable cups, bottles, and shipping pallets) and microplastics (i.e., items < 5
mm diameter, such as microbeads and fishing line fragments). Microplastics are further
categorized into primary and secondary sources where primary sources include
manufactured products and secondary sources result from the breakdown of
microplastics in the environment. As a subcategory of microplastics, nano plastics (<100
nm size range) are likely to occur from both primary and secondary sources; methods do
not currently exist to detect nano plastics in the environment. The abundance of
microplastics (compared to macroplastics) in the marine environment is increasing,
according to a state-of-the-science report conducted by Canada’s Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) (SCBD, 2012). Recent investigations have found

8|Page
the majority (90%) of plastic debris found in the pelagic environment is generally less
than 5 mm in diameter. Examples of some of the common types of plastics typically
found in the aquatic environment are shown in the below figure.

9|Page
4 Toxicological Impacts of Chemicals Associated with Plastics on Aquatic
Organisms and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife
The adverse physical impacts on organisms from plastic debris in the aquatic
environments, including ingestion, entanglement, and smothering. Ingestion of plastic is
less visible than entanglement but may lead to direct mortality or indirect mortality due
to poor nutrition or dehydration. However, the ingestion of plastics also establishes an
exposure pathway between chemical additives or chemicals sorbed to plastics and the
organism which has ingested this plastic. This section reviews the literature in terms of:
(1) how aquatic organisms and aquatic-dependent wildlife may be exposed to plastics
and associated contaminants and (2) the potential for chemicals associated with plastics
to bioaccumulate, biomagnify, and cause toxic effects in aquatic life.

10 | P a g e
4.1 Routes of Exposure
The processes by which organisms may be exposed to the chemicals associated with
plastics and associated contaminants include direct ingestion (i.e., if the animal mistakes
the plastic as prey or food or inadvertently consumes plastics while feeding), indirect
ingestion (i.e., consumption of prey that ingested the plastic), and dermal exposure. In
addition, the size of the plastic pellet or fragment strongly affects the rate at which
sorbed chemicals may be subsequently desorbed into organisms after ingestion.

4.2 Toxic Effects

The changes in gene expression observed in females fed the virgin plastic suggests that
the chemicals within the plastic may induce endocrine-disrupting effects. microplastic
exposure alone increased hemocyte mortality, changed oxidative and energetic
processes in mussels, and combined microplastic and fluoranthene exposure led to
highest tissue alterations and anti-oxidant marker levels.

5- Marine Plastic Pollution Must Be Addressed

• The plastic produced in the first ten years of this century surpassed the amount
produced in the entire last century.
• The five oceanic gyres are estimated to contain 100 million tons of marine litter and an
estimated 20 million tons of plastic litter enter the ocean each year.
• There is a grave need for additional regulation of single-use plastics that end up in our
waterways.
• There is currently 118 single-use plastic bag local bans or fees in the United States,
with the entire state of Hawaii and the District of Columbia covered by such regulations.

5.1- What CFCs were to the ozone layer in the 1970s, plastic marine litter is now
to the ocean.
Plastic marine litter starves, poisons, strangles and results in other harm to marine
wildlife. Toxic chemicals sorbed onto plastic particles or used in the production of plastic
can be transferred to wildlife through plastic ingestion, potentially impacting human
health. Plastic marine litter also results in billions of dollars of damage and other costs to
the fishing, tourism, and shipping industries. Marine, litter is “any persistent solid
material that is manufactured or processed and directly or indirectly, intentionally or
unintentionally, disposed of or abandoned into the marine environment.”. Local
governments incur high costs associated with municipal waste and litter cleanup services,
of which plastic constitutes a significant percentage.

11 | P a g e
5.2- The Harms of Plastic Marine Litter
Plastic marine litter is one of the most pervasive and menacing problems affecting the
marine environment. The volume of plastics produced in the world has sharply increased
in the past decades, and an increasing amount of plastic litter ends up in waterways and
the ocean. The amount of plastic trash on beaches, including plastic bags and bottles, has
increased 5.4 percent annually. An estimated 20 million tons of plastic enter the ocean
each year. All marine litter can be linked to human activities on land or at sea. It is
estimated that land-based sources of marine litter account for 60-80 percent of all
marine litter, and plastic accounts for between 60-90 percent of this litter.

5.3- Plastic Marine Litter Harms Wildlife and Ecosystems

Plastic litter is particularly hazardous to the marine environment because plastics are
durable, buoyant, waterproof, indigestible, and non-biodegradable. Plastics can starve,
poison, and strangle marine life through ingestion and entanglement. Ingestion of plastic
can wound animals internally by piercing their gut. Animals at all levels of the food chain
consume plastic. And, because plastic can resist biological degradation, it can fill animals’
stomachs of so that they have a false sense of fullness causing malnutrition and
eventually starvation. Furthermore, scientific studies have shown that toxic chemicals
from plastic particles can be transferred to wildlife through plastic ingestion. Once an
animal dies, its body will decompose and release the plastic again to harm or kill other
animals. Entanglement in marine debris has been documented to affect 32 species of
marine mammals including whales and sea lions, 51 species of seabirds, and 6 species of
sea turtles. Entanglement can kill wildlife or impair an animal’s ability to swim, meaning
entangled animals must eat more to accommodate for the increased weight and drag
while swimming, and may have greater difficulty evading predators.

5.4- The Harms of Toxic Chemicals and Microplastics

Toxic chemicals in plastics can poison marine animals that ingest plastic. Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs) in surrounding seawater accumulate on marine plastic litter.
Concentrations of the pesticide DDT, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other
persistent organic pollutants and pesticides have been found on samples of plastic litter
collected from the North Pacific and coastal Hawaii and “Plastic marine litter starves,
poisons, strangles, and results in other harm to marine wildlife.” Federal Actions to
Address Plastic Marine Pollution. Pollutants added to some plastics at the time of
manufacturing, including bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates are linked to endocrine
disruption and are capable of being transferred to wildlife through plastic ingestion.
Plastics, their chemical additives, and the toxins that accumulate on them may impact the
entire food chain through animal ingestion of microplastics.

12 | P a g e
6- POLICY SUCCESS:
Bans and Fees on Single-Use Plastic Bags
Countries on nearly every continent have enacted legislation to reduce the use of on
single-use non-biodegradable plastic bags that clutter sidewalks, clog storm drains, and
eventually find their way into the oceans. Notably, the European Commission adopted
regulations in November 2013 that would require member states to either start charging
for single-use plastic bags or ban them altogether. More than 70 percent of commenters
on the proposed regulations agreed that a ban was needed. County and municipal
governments throughout the United States have also begun to adopt bans or imposed
fees on single-use non-biodegradable plastic bags in response to plastic bag litter that
clutters sidewalks, clogs storm drains, and eventually finds its “The economic costs of
marine litter are often borne by those affected rather than those responsible for the
problem.” Local bag bans and fees have been widely successful in reducing the
environmental harms and economic costs associated with plastic bag waste and litter.
Many states legislatures also have considered plastic bag bans or fees, including Oregon,
California, Maryland, and Virginia, but no state has yet enacted a ban or fee into law.
Washington D.C.’s Plastic Bag Fee San Francisco’s Plastic Bag Ban Hawaii’s De Facto State
Bag Ban All businesses selling food or alcohol are required to charge a five-cent fee for
disposable plastic and paper bags The retailer retains 12 cents of the fee to cover
administrative costs; the remainder goes to the Anacostia River Fund, which is used for
public education, providing reusable bags to residents, and upgrading storm drains. In
2007, the City of San Francisco became the first municipality to ban large retailers from
distributing single-use plastic bags. San Francisco has since extended the ban to all
retailers and take out restaurants. The ordinance requires retailers to impose a 10 cent
fee for each recyclable paper or compostable bag. All four counties in Hawaii prohibit
retailers from Providing no biodegradable plastic bags. All counties except Hawaii County
also prohibit paper bags that are comprised of less than 40 percent recycled material and
are not 100 percent recyclable. The bans are enforced in part through civil fines up to
$1000. Results: In the first month of implementation, bag use dropped from 22.5 million
bags per month to 3 million bags. To date, the fee has generated more than $6 million for
the Anacostia River Fund. Results: Prior to the ban, San Francisco produced an estimated
180 million single-use plastic bags per year. In the first year of implementation, the ban
resulted in 5 million fewer plastic bags every month. Results: Consumers on Oahu have
shifted mainly to paper bags. Consequently, the Hawaii Congress introduced a bill that
would charge a ten-cent fee for every single-use checkout bag; as of January 2013, this
bill has seen no movement.

13 | P a g e
State Deposit-Refund Systems
Deposit-refund systems create market incentives for proper disposal of potentially
polluting products by combining a product charge (i.e., a deposit) and a subsidy for
recycling or properly disposing of the product (i.e., a refund). These systems are
commonly applied to beverage containers because such containers make up a significant
proportion of litter. Deposits for beverage containers range from $0.15 to $0.25 per
container. Manufacturers’ and vendors’ costs in handling returned products are partially
offset by the interest earned on deposits, unclaimed deposits, and sales of collected
products. Bottle deposit laws have significantly reduced litter and increased the
percentage of containers recycled in several states. For example, Oregon reported a 75
percent to 85 percent decrease in roadside litter only two years after enacting its deposit
law. Deposit-refund systems have been shown to be more cost-effective than other
methods of reducing waste disposal, such as recycling subsidies. Compared with curbside
recycling programs, deposit-refund systems also generate higher percentages of
materials returned and less contamination of collected materials. The U.S. Congress has
considered but not enacted federal legislation on deposit refund systems. The industry
has voluntarily implemented some deposit-refund systems, while state or local
authorities have implemented others. Although there are no deposit-refund systems for
plastic bags, 10 states currently have deposit-refund systems for bottles.

Extended Producer Responsibility

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a producer-end mechanism to decrease waste,
particularly plastic waste, by increasing recycling and decreasing dependency on raw
materials. EPR shifts the cost of managing post-use products partially or fully from local
governments to the producing industry. EPR is based on the “polluter pays” principle,
which holds that those who produce the waste are responsible for recycling and disposal.
By requiring industry to take back products at the end of a product’s life, the industry can
best design products to enhance their reusability. In this way, EPR is similar to product
liability law, in that holding companies responsible for the “injury” created by their
products incentivizes companies to improve the design of those products to minimize
that injury. EPR laws for packaging serve as a means to divert waste from entering
landfills and to increase recycling of reusable materials, thereby decreasing sources of
marine pollution. Although no U.S. state has passed legislation implementing
comprehensive EPR for paper and packaging, at least thirty-three countries have
implemented effective EPR policies. For example, Germany’s Packaging Ordinance
dramatically increased recycling and reduced plastics packaging from 40 percent by
volume to 27 percent. Similarly, three Canadian provinces—Quebec, Manitoba, and
Ontario—have EPR programs for packaging and printed materials. Each province’s law
targets any package or container made from glass, metal, or plastic and printed

14 | P a g e
materials. The industry is required to bear a significant portion of the net cost of
municipal recycling, ranging from 50 percent to 100 percent. Within the first few years of
its program, Manitoba saw a 42 percent reduction in single-use plastic bags supplied or
sold.

7-Recommendations:
• Banning,or,imposing,a,fee,on,heavily,littered,items,such,as,single8use,
plastic,bags,and,food,containers,,
•Establishing a federal depositrefund system for heavily littered items such as singleuse
plastic bags and beverage bottles.

8-Case of Management
Ireland Implemented plastic bag tax in 2002 $0.30 tax charged by retailers Within first-
year plastic bags as a percentage of street litter dropped from 5% (2002) to 0.32% (2003)

California retailers are not responsible for collecting deposits and issuing refunds to
consumers, and containers are not returned to their original distributors. Instead, bottle
manufacturers pay a $0.05 fee for every container under 24 ounces and $0.10 for every
container over 24 ounces. The revenues go into a state recycling fund, which then pays
the same respective amounts to the party that redeems the containers. This means
anyone can be a collector, and payment can be passed onto consumers as an incentive
for returning the containers. This system was the product of a compromise between
retailers who did not want to manage used containers at their locations and
environmentalists who wanted to stimulate recycling through economic incentives. Like
all other states with deposit refund systems, all bottles must have the label “CA
Redemption Value” or “California Redemption Value.” As a result of this system,
California is more cost-effective than systems where redemption is managed through
vendors. In 2012, Californians recycled more than 17.2 billion beverage containers, a
recycling rate of 82 percent. California’s system generated $200 million in 2011 revenues,
which financed grants for private nonprofit programs and public sector activities that
help reduce litter and promote recycling.

9-Conclusion
Plastic litter poses a serious threat to the marine environment and imposes significant
economic costs on govt. and industries. As legislation to address plastic waste continues

15 | P a g e
to grow in popularity at the state and local levels, the need for national cooperation and
uniformity in tackling this environmental issue will also grow.
Plastics in aquatic systems contain chemicals originating from the plastic material,
chemicals added during the manufacturing process, as well as organic chemicals, metals,
and other contaminants sorbed from the water column. Given that many of these
chemicals have been found to have harmful effects once in the aquatic environment, the
potential toxicological impacts of these chemicals associated with plastic once ingested
by aquatic organisms and aquatic-dependent wildlife is an area of concern.

References

Akortia, E., J.J.O. Okonkwo, M. Lupankwa, S.D. Osae, A.P. Daso, O.I. Olukunle and A.
Chaudhary. (2016). A review of sources, levels, and toxicity of polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDEs) and their transformation and transport in various environmental
compartments. Environmental Reviews, 10.1139/er-2015-0081.

Andrady, A.L., and M.A. Neal. (2009). Applications and societal benefits of plastics.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 1977-1984.
Andrady, A.L. (2011). Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin
62: 1596-1605.

Andrady, A.L. (2015). Persistence of plastic litter in the ocean. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow
& M. Klages (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter (pp. 57-72). Berlin: Springer.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2015). Toxicological Profile
for Perfluoroalkyls. Draft for Public Comment. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Atlanta, GA. Accessed May 2016. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp200.pdf.

16 | P a g e